Talk:Big lie
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big lie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Big lie. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Big lie at the Reference desk. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
"big lie" vs. "the big lie"[edit]
Striked-out by rootsmusic
|
---|
|
- ??? It's about really BIG lies (as in obvious to any normal person) that are boldly and deliberately REPEATED. Such things tend to become aspects of propaganda and conspiracy theories. Don't you agree? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- "...there's no widespread agreement on what is true."' Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case in many instances. Somethings are backed up by facts, they are said to be "true". Other things are backed up by hyperbole, argumentation, supposition, and non-factual statements, these are "false". When the false things are really large and endlessly repeated for political or propaganda purposes, they are "Big Lies", no matter who tells them. The most notable recent Big Lie, for instance, is that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election because of massive voting irregularities. It remains untrue no matter how many times Donald Trump and the MAGA folks who dominate the current Republican Party repeat it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(Sorry, I'm striking my previous questions because they were too rhetorical. Hopefully, my point below explains why I find this article confusing.)
This article's title is "Big lie". Then the U.S. examples cited under Subsequent use introduces "the big lie", which shares two words with the article's title and adds a preceding article word. These are phrases that this article defines very differently.
Under Donald Trump's lies of a stolen election, the first paragraph is about "big lie propaganda techniques". Then the second paragraph introduces "the big lie" as a label, but that label isn't defining any propaganda technique. (Biden labeled the joint effort by two Senators to contest the election results as "the big lie". Others used the label to refer to Trump's false claims about massive election fraud but not to the propaganda technique that he employed to spread false claims.)
In the subsequent section, American conservatives have appropriated that label for other controversies. So the label's appropriation is unreliable, because it's subjectively appropriated.
Instead of attaching "the big lie" to this article (which was originally about a propaganda technique), "the big lie" should be either a separate article or perhaps it can be moved into the article about election denial. -- rootsmusic (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting we move the Trump stuff to the Denialism article in the Denialism#Election denial section. Is that correct? It would make more sense to use Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election as the target, or, better yet, Trump's "stolen election" Big Lie. Otherwise, it's perfectly on topic here as a notable example of how the propaganda technique is being used in the most notable way. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Correct @Valjean. I'm also proposing a third possible solution: to move "the big lie" into the article about False or misleading statements by Donald Trump.
- Since "big lie" is defined by this article's first sentence (
A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth primarily used as a political propaganda technique.
), Donald Trump's lies of a stolen election actually means: Trump employed a propaganda technique to spread "the big lie". As a label, "the big lie" has also been appropriated in a myriad of meanings by others like (according to this article):- Biden, who appropriated the label to characterize the joint effort by two Senators to contested the election results.
- Romney, Toomey and others, who appropriated the label to refer to Trump's false claims about massive election fraud.
- American conservatives, who have appropriated the label to various controversies under 21st-century use by American conservatives.
- rootsmusic (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's already mentioned in the "False or misleading statements..." article. Those three uses are consistent with the meaning we use here, although the last example describes a misappropriation of the term and attempt by conservatives to hijack it.
- This article is the perfect place to cover all of this stuff. I don't think you're going to get any support for your efforts to move this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hat misunderstanding |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- The phrase was not invented for the Trump instance of usage, but throwing out the most current usage of it sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, and seems utterly pedantic to me. I strongly oppose removing the contemporary material from this article. "THE big lie" (current usage) is simply the most recent example of the "big lie". I see no need for the suggested changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
About China's "committing human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang"[edit]
this accusation currently has no conclusion, so it's inappropriate to label this thing as "big lie". Coddlebean (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I tried adding "pov section", but it got reverted Coddlebean (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ask yourself one question: "Is that content backed by a RS?" Whether there is "no conclusion" is rather irrelevant. Accusations, in this case a false one by CCP, are common, and they are misusing the term "big lie" in their defense. If there's a better way to frame and word the content, feel free to improve it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sources will do what they do, we just follow the sources. What would be innaproriate would be trying to overrule the sources with a personal POV, I hope thats not what you're attempting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Germany articles
- Low-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Marketing & Advertising articles
- Low-importance Marketing & Advertising articles
- WikiProject Marketing & Advertising articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class intelligence articles
- Intelligence task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles